From the point of view of pure cinema, it is quite impossible to make any review of this film: `Vanilla sky' is the carbon copy of the Spanish film `Abre los ojos,' translated practically verbatim, and with the only difference of a higher percentage of in-your-face special effects (including the typical never-ending fall from a building) that, if they don't add anything to the film, they certainly add a lot to the budget of Digital Domain, the company responsible for most of the special effects. What is left for us to do is to reflect on the meaning of such an operation. We can't honestly call it a remake because of the temporal closeness of its antecedent (Abre los ojos was released in 1997), and of the consequent lack of the `cultural distance' necessary to any reinterpretation operation. We can't call it an homage to a genre (a la Brain de Palma in `Blow Out,' just to make an example) because the referent is too specific, and the carbon copy quality of `Vanilla Sky' too evident.
So, what is left? The producers, obviously, believed that the story would appeal to the American public, for otherwise they wouldn't have spent a considerable amount of money filming it but, in this case, wouldn't have been simpler to release the original in AMC theaters around the country? The only explanation I can find, one that is rather insulting for the American public, is the following. Hollywood producers believe that the mainstream spectator will not see a film unless it falls completely within the expected (and very restricted, Hollywood canons). So, the setting has to be a familiar American setting (New York instead of Madrid) and there has to be the usual sprinkle of known American actors (Tom Cruise). But, most important, the dialog has an undefinable Hollywood quality: just the mix of witty, sad, and sugary to which Hollywood films have accustomed the American public.
This film, in other words, is an explicit insult: Hollywood is telling us that they got us so use to their style of crap that the only way for us to go see a film is to make it into crap.
What is truly sad is that they might be right: Vanilla Sky was a discrete success. On the other hand (and I quote Barnum paraphrasing Mencken): `Nobody ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the American public.'
So, what is left? The producers, obviously, believed that the story would appeal to the American public, for otherwise they wouldn't have spent a considerable amount of money filming it but, in this case, wouldn't have been simpler to release the original in AMC theaters around the country? The only explanation I can find, one that is rather insulting for the American public, is the following. Hollywood producers believe that the mainstream spectator will not see a film unless it falls completely within the expected (and very restricted, Hollywood canons). So, the setting has to be a familiar American setting (New York instead of Madrid) and there has to be the usual sprinkle of known American actors (Tom Cruise). But, most important, the dialog has an undefinable Hollywood quality: just the mix of witty, sad, and sugary to which Hollywood films have accustomed the American public.
This film, in other words, is an explicit insult: Hollywood is telling us that they got us so use to their style of crap that the only way for us to go see a film is to make it into crap.
What is truly sad is that they might be right: Vanilla Sky was a discrete success. On the other hand (and I quote Barnum paraphrasing Mencken): `Nobody ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the American public.'